[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 06:24 PM 12/17/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Jordan DeLong scripsit: > I don't know why the seperate prenex infront of the ".ije" was > removed from the grammar. It used to be there, and there's even > examples in CLL which use it (chap 16). In order for the 'external > bridi negation' rules to work properly it must exist also. Ambiguity. If a prenex is allowed before each individual sentence, and also before the group of ijek-connected sentences, we can't tell when we see a prenex after .i or ni'o or start-of-text which kind it is and what its scope is. > I don't know if fixing this is something the BF can do. But it's > a contradiction in CLL, so it should be at least considered. I agree that it is a contradiction and should be fixed, but at the moment I don't see quite how.
Long scope prenex before connected sentences requires forethought, and hence tu'e/tu'u, which is probably an underutilized feature of the language.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org